Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-35853-apmail-harmony-dev-archive=harmony.apache.org@harmony.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 43212 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2009 08:34:57 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Jan 2009 08:34:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 16580 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2009 08:34:55 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@harmony.apache.org
Received: (qmail 16554 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2009 08:34:55 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@harmony.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@harmony.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@harmony.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.harmony.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@harmony.apache.org
Received: (qmail 16543 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jan 2009 08:34:55 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:34:55 -0800
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sean.xx.qiu@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.200.173 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.200.173] (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.173)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 08:34:49 +0000
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so7851595wfc.24
        for <dev@harmony.apache.org>; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:34:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to
         :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        bh=RyrR3gywb36ejSzJdea7o3cUCW57dqIo9RO5+cfaDtU=;
        b=XIhllpUi+DNUDuT1lF8FuPqG/3Q7anxwYklkYiJEDJGzfd5ju7HuBWIQWaueWuuJZz
         qDP9jT6FTQOEkJ/3P8NUiel2Y1j56HoJiGI/2pa3U3kPtMULabC4R3/qwe2A15DQ+S2X
         kOvhHt7Ly1XJ+juMu0zkSHJvjDTFqu6yjFR1Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:references;
        b=ZJZdjC87Cxf4PY//L4cqNIMwY+BvPZMgNi2i8TD46TjSyWYYq/GPr3qzuWEWWB+P4r
         Ah+jiNFMN4ZZMyg/rFbnaamrv4CQ5dsbtiv59hkfqWVGI6x1Sxvg5P8fufYlNTo4OnAR
         iJq7oOzDzrMbPLs76Oknbl6Oul7wR88HnMyrg=
Received: by 10.142.125.9 with SMTP id x9mr4060824wfc.236.1231058068594;
        Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:34:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.143.34.14 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Jan 2009 00:34:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <94d710af0901040034m4780ef8ex2f838758cef25596@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 16:34:28 +0800
From: "Sean Qiu" <sean.xx.qiu@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: Using PriviAction instead of PrivilegedAction
In-Reply-To: <3b3f27c60812240806y2877509bmfd9f3ec8e365d4f9@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_221882_32751888.1231058068588"
References: <70c713190812212002m55b534dbm4491148d1e3997cd@mail.gmail.com>
	 <70c713190812212152q43f69c19y4d6c2f47a3a85fe4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c30d70960812220132s7d7bb96ej23ac67dbc7b592ee@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e0f125db0812220240q577770a8h255e2e2a70d274df@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c30d70960812220314q549274bbu8c371573ac5c2cea@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4952188A.1030407@gmail.com>
	 <e0f125db0812240324v62624940y71fc3c3c57545255@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4952208E.8090405@gmail.com>
	 <3b3f27c60812240806y2877509bmfd9f3ec8e365d4f9@mail.gmail.com>
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

------=_Part_221882_32751888.1231058068588
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

"find . -name *.java -exec grep  'doPrivileged' {} \; | wc -l"   in
<trunk>/modules/luni/src/main
We get the fact that AccessController.doPrivileged* is called 53 times.
I think it may be worth refacting it.

Is there any comments about Nathan's suggestion code sample?

2008/12/25 Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org>

> Agreed. The value is just eliminating some redundant code and if there
> is a lot of calls in a single module, that's why I suggested a util
> class for each module, as appropriate.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 5:44 AM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Pavel Pervov wrote:
> >> As I see it this class only solves the problem of "the more anonymous
> >> classes - the larger disribution is" problem. That is all. I assume we
> >> want to move toward solving that problem, but I'm not quite sure if we
> >> want to achieve it by using _single_ helper class for all the class
> >> library.
> >
> > So how is this use of PriviAction:
> >  new PriviAction<String>("line.separator")
> >
> >
> > producing fewer anonymous classes than this use of PrivilegedAction:
> >
> >  new PrivilegedAction<String>() {
> >    public String run() {
> >      return System.getProperty("line.separator");
> >    }
> >  }
> >
> >
> > It is more compact in source code, but...<shrug/>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> I didn't see a good answer to Alexei's question...
> >>>
> >>> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> >>>> Pavel,
> >>>> Kevin didn't mention performance, did he?
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe it is always a trade off between modularity and speed. The
> >>>> performance measurement might be a part of Kevin's arguments if his
> >>>> intentions are to improve the performance. That is why I asked him to
> >>>> elaborate both approaches uncovering intentions.
> >>>>
> >>>> If our internal security interfaces are much quicker on real
> >>>> applications I would wonder why our public interfaces are so slow.
> >>> What problem is the PriviAction solving?  I see the class comment [1]
> says:
> >>>
> >>> "Helper class to avoid multiple anonymous inner class for
> >>> java.security.AccessController#doPrivileged(PrivilegedAction) calls."
> >>>
> >>> Is that really a problem?  For readability or performance?
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/main/java/org/apache/harmony/luni/util/PriviAction.java?revision=486600
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Tim
> >>>
> >>
> >
>



-- 
Best Regards
Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu

China Software Development Lab, IBM

------=_Part_221882_32751888.1231058068588--